An excerpt (though I'd love it if people would click the link and read the whole thing):

But what does it mean to say that the subset of humans with the trait of maleness essentially possess headship, while the subset with the trait of femaleness essentially are subordinate to that headship? Submission and subordination are not positive ontological qualities in and of themselves; they are, rather, responses to the ontological quality of headship in the other. The human with headship is the agent, the mover, the one who acts. The subordinate human follows and responds to the agent and mover. Subordination is not an essential ability which is equal and corresponding to headship. It is in every way a lesser and dependent quality to the quality of headship.

If headship is essential to male humanity and subordination/submission is essential to female humanity, and since the essential attributes are what make a thing ontologically itself, then male humanity in its very essence possesses a quality which female humanity in its very essence lacks and is dependent upon. The result is that given these definitions of the nature of male and female humans, female humanity then logically and necessarily becomes ontologically lesser to male humanity.

We simply are not talking about functional differences here! If the nature of human maleness is headship and the nature of human femaleness is subordination, then what we have are two classes of humanity which are superior and inferior by their very natures. This is what egalitarians and feminists object to.

An excerpt (though I'd love it if people would click the link and read the whole thing):

But what does it mean to say that the subset of humans with the trait of maleness essentially possess headship, while the subset with the trait of femaleness essentially are subordinate to that headship? Submission and subordination are not positive ontological qualities in and of themselves; they are, rather, responses to the ontological quality of headship in the other. The human with headship is the agent, the mover, the one who acts. The subordinate human follows and responds to the agent and mover. Subordination is not an essential ability which is equal and corresponding to headship. It is in every way a lesser and dependent quality to the quality of headship.

If headship is essential to male humanity and subordination/submission is essential to female humanity, and since the essential attributes are what make a thing ontologically itself, then male humanity in its very essence possesses a quality which female humanity in its very essence lacks and is dependent upon. The result is that given these definitions of the nature of male and female humans, female humanity then logically and necessarily becomes ontologically lesser to male humanity.

We simply are not talking about functional differences here! If the nature of human maleness is headship and the nature of human femaleness is subordination, then what we have are two classes of humanity which are superior and inferior by their very natures. This is what egalitarians and feminists object to.

this board is so seldom used now it's luck I saw it. it might have sat here for years.

KR Wordgazer wrote:...
We simply are not talking about functional differences here! If the nature of human maleness is headship and the nature of human femaleness is subordination, then what we have are two classes of humanity which are superior and inferior by their very natures. This is what egalitarians and feminists object to.[/i]

Absolutely.

But why then does the Bible contradict this position? The natural conclusion is that the Bible is wrong, and it is wrong because it is the product of man (and not woman!), and not the product of God.

KR Wordgazer wrote:...
We simply are not talking about functional differences here! If the nature of human maleness is headship and the nature of human femaleness is subordination, then what we have are two classes of humanity which are superior and inferior by their very natures. This is what egalitarians and feminists object to.[/i]

Absolutely.

But why then does the Bible contradict this position? The natural conclusion is that the Bible is wrong, and it is wrong because it is the product of man (and not woman!), and not the product of God.

It Doesn't. notice the category on the board is "egal" that means a school of thought to which both Wordgazer I belong, says the Bible has been mistranslated and misunderstood by sexist professors an d ecclesiastic big wigif you want to read more about it see my old website

Metacrock wrote:It Doesn't. notice the category on the board is "egal" that means a school of thought to which both Wordgazer I belong, says the Bible has been mistranslated and misunderstood by sexist professors an d ecclesiastic big wigif you want to read more about it see my old website

That is quite a stretch. I appreciate the New Testament has been massaged in a few places to support the patriarchy, but can you really blame "sexist professors" for that?

How many of Jesus twelve disciples were women? Do you think they got edited out by the ecclesiastic bigwigs?

And what of the blatant misogyny of the Old Testament? Here is a quick sampling:

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

Leviticus 12:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

Numbers 3:15 Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them.

Proverbs 31:10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

As an atheist, I can excuse these as a product of their culture. Do you think the Old Testament is merely a product of a human culture? Or do you think it is the inspired word of god? If the latter, do you think these verses are wrong?